United States v. Larry Wayne Walker

First Circuit

United States v. Larry Wayne Walker

424 F.2d 1069, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9498

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1970

Docket7481_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 424 F.2d 1069 (United States v. Larry Wayne Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Larry Wayne Walker, 424 F.2d 1069, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9498 (1st Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment must be affirmed on the opinion below 304 F.Supp. 970. In United States v. Powers, 1 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 834, we upheld the reasonableness of regulation 32 C.F.R. 1625.2, which provides that a claim for conscientious objector status must be made before the registrant receives his induction notice, unless his entitlement to that status did not mature until after- *1070 wards. See also, United States v. Gearey, 2 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 144. We cannot in this respect consider it unreasonable to require a registrant to exercise at least a minimum amount of diligence in his own interest. We held, for reasons there set out, that the registrant had a duty of inquiry as to the nature of that status, and that it would constitute an undue and unworkable burden upon the operation of the Service if he could do nothing, and then awaken to his rights, or alleged rights, at the final moment. In the case at bar we do not consider that defendant’s asking two friends, who were as uninformed as himself, satisfied that burden.

The reason for this regulation requires it to be applied in an individual case, at least in the discretion of the Board, without holding a hearing and taking testimony. For us to decide otherwise would effectively destroy the rule and the purpose behind it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment must be affirmed on the opinion below 304 F.Supp. 970. In United States v. Powers, 1 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 834, we upheld the reasonableness of regulation 32 C.F.R. 1625.2, which provides that a claim for conscientious objector status must be made before the registrant receives his induction notice, unless his entitlement to that status did not mature until after- *1070 wards. See also, United States v. Gearey, 2 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 144. We cannot in this respect consider it unreasonable to require a registrant to exercise at least a minimum amount of diligence in his own interest. We held, for reasons there set out, that the registrant had a duty of inquiry as to the nature of that status, and that it would constitute an undue and unworkable burden upon the operation of the Service if he could do nothing, and then awaken to his rights, or alleged rights, at the final moment. In the case at bar we do not consider that defendant’s asking two friends, who were as uninformed as himself, satisfied that burden.

The reason for this regulation requires it to be applied in an individual case, at least in the discretion of the Board, without holding a hearing and taking testimony. For us to decide otherwise would effectively destroy the rule and the purpose behind it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 F.2d 1069, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-larry-wayne-walker-ca1-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack